Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Motion to Approve

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 March be approved.

My Lords, I would first highlight that this debate deals with both the statutory instrument and the regret amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I will cover both in my remarks.

These draft regulations aim to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles, to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and to unlock economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower. Businesses and families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner, greener vehicles that are cheaper to run and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe in 2024 and, so far this year, demand is up by over a third, according to industry figures. While demand for zero-emission vans is also increasing, this Government are determined to go further to give businesses and consumers the widest range of options, which is exactly what these regulations will do.

Zero-emission vehicles can be heavier than the equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles because of the weight of their battery or fuel. This can push them into a higher driving licence category than their petrol or diesel equivalents. Other than their weight, these vehicles are almost identical in size, design and payload to their petrol and diesel counterparts. Regulations to partially solve this problem were proposed by a previous Government and passed in 2018, allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes if they fulfilled additional requirements. “Alternatively fuelled” meant vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen and gas. These requirements include five hours of additional training from an accredited instructor, driving only for the purpose of transporting goods and no ability to tow. E-fuels and other synthetic fuels were not included in this regulation, as they are no heavier than conventional petrol or diesel. However, with the rapid advancement of zero-emission technology since 2018, the existing regulations now represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero-emission vehicles.

Finally, the eligible fuels will be limited to zero-emission only. This means electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. This differs from the previous rules by removing gas and biogas-fuelled vehicles from scope. This brings me to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his regret amendment: that the regulations do not include non-zero emission alternative fuels. This was also raised during the debate in the other place on the same issue.

I would first like to explain the history to this instrument. In 2018, when the original licence flexibility was introduced, the alternative fuels that were in scope were electricity, hydrogen, gas and biogas. E-fuels and synthetic fuels have never been included in this flexibility, as they do not require an additional weight allowance, since they use the same types of engines as petrol and diesel vehicles. This instrument now proposes to remove gas and biogas fuels from scope, as they are not zero- emission. Additionally, Department for Transport statistics show that there are fewer than 30 gas and biogas vehicles in this weight range in the United Kingdom. Removing these vehicles from scope will therefore have a very minor impact. Gas, biogas, e-fuel and synthetic fuel-powered vehicles may continue to be driven by a category B licence holder up to 3.5 tonnes. Electricity and hydrogen remain included in this legislation, as the implementation of these technologies means that they are often heavier due to the weight of their battery or fuel.

I want to be clear: e-fuels and synthetic fuels will have a role to play as we decarbonise our economy. For example, the Government are supporting sustainable aviation fuel through our sustainable aviation fuel mandate, as well as providing support to sustainable fuels as part of the long-standing renewable transport fuels obligation. This instrument is not seeking to put one technology above another. Instead, it is designed to remove barriers and create an even playing field. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord feels able not to press his regret amendment.

I also take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that road safety is of the utmost priority to this Government. During the public consultation on these proposals held in 2022, some respondents raised safety concerns. These concerns relate to the removal of the training and weight of the vehicle, which could increase the likelihood or severity of incidents respectively. Following a detailed analysis, the Government are confident that these regulations pose a low risk to road safety. In total, across the years 2020 to 2023, there were nine collisions involving such vehicles, six of which were minor. We will, however, be closely monitoring incident data as it becomes available to protect the safety of all road users. In the unlikely event that a concerning trend emerges, swift action will be taken to protect the public. The department will publish detailed guidance on the safe operation of these vehicles, which we are working with industry to disseminate.

Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the regulations apply to Great Britain only and that the same licence flexibility does not currently exist in Northern Ireland. Driving licence regulations are a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are in close communication with the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure on this issue, but a decision on this policy would be for Northern Ireland Ministers.

These regulations are a common-sense measure to equalise driving licence rules between zero-emission vehicles and their petrol and diesel equivalents. I hope that the noble Lord has been reassured on the matter raised by his regret amendment and that he feels able not to press it. I also hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this instrument. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not extend, and in some circumstances restrict, competence to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles which are not zero-emission vehicles.”

My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this is a very narrow and technical instrument, but it has some very interesting and indeed rather sinister ramifications.

If we start with the first interesting ramification, we could talk, at least briefly, about the state of the roads. There is a great deal of complaint about potholes in the road. I would go a little bit further. I suggest that there are many roads in this country now which do not merely have potholes, but where the base of the road—its underlying structure—is now seriously damaged and has not been properly maintained. It is true that this was not looked after well by the previous Government, but it has got worse under the current Government.

I was in Oxfordshire at the weekend. I drove along one road in the country that was in such an appalling condition that it was reminiscent of the sort of 19th-century travel writing one reads of enterprising journeys into Calabria and strange and unexplored parts of Europe at the time. This road was virtually about to break up completely. Our roads are falling to pieces and the Government are doing nothing about it.

Why is that relevant to this instrument? I can hear noble Lords asking that question—gasping in fact, in exasperation to try to know the answer. The relevance is that the principal reason why roads are breaking up in this country is the weight of vehicles: not the occasional juggernaut that passes down an Oxfordshire lane, but the relentless beating they take from heavier and heavier vehicles. Part of that is due to the fashion for SUVs, which I personally deprecate and cannot entirely understand, but a great deal of the rest of it is to do with the fact that electric vehicles are, as the Minister has said, notably heavier than petrol vehicles. That is what is breaking up our roads. This Government are doing nothing at all about it, and it is getting worse. They said they would be better than the last Government—they are not making those improvements.

My Lords, I do not have any argument with the Government over their laudable environmental and other objectives in bringing forward these regulations, but I have a question that is really to do with the physics of the matter. We know that kinetic energy is a key, or perhaps the key, determinant in the severity of and damage caused by road accidents. Kinetic energy is of course calculated as half of the mass times the square of the velocity.

Essentially, if, as I understand it, the Government are content that it is safe for a category B licence holder to drive a 4.25 tonne vehicle powered by zero-emissions means, why is it not safe for that same driver to drive another vehicle powered by any other means? In the event of a road accident or collision, the power source of the vehicle the category B driver is at the wheel of will make no difference to the brakes and tyres, and to the impact caused to the other vehicle involved in the accident.

When we are legislating on road safety, we have to take into account the realities and physics of the matter as well as other government objectives, such as decarbonisation, laudable though they may be. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

My Lords, as the Minister points out, we have a large electric car market; as my noble friend Lord Moylan on the Front Bench points out, what we have is a market for large electric cars. I ask the Minister: why does that continue to be the case?

There is a very obvious gap in what is available. You can get an electric car—a heavier version of what the car companies are selling at the moment. You can get an electric bicycle. What is in between? If you wander around the streets of London, you can find lots of electric transport that is in between, but it is all commercial. It is all with one driver up front and a box on the back, doing deliveries around London. These are sensibly sized vehicles, which are low speed, relatively low range and certainly low-cost. Why is there not a passenger equivalent of that—something like the tuk-tuks you see in India and elsewhere but, this being England, weatherproof? It is pretty useless to have one of those things where the driver is open to all the storms. Even in Eastbourne, the sunniest town in the UK, I would not care to try driving one of those. It is entirely possible to put doors and windows on a tuk-tuk; it is just the Government’s regulations that make it impossible. I am not blaming this Government for it, as the regulations have been in place for a long time.